1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of Kuri-si apartment complex No. 206 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and D is the person who leased the instant commercial building before the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building and operated the pharmacy up to the present date. The Plaintiff leased No. 12, a floor below the instant commercial building and operated the gold bank.

B. On December 31, 2012 and January 10, 2013, water leakage accident occurred from the water pipes passing between the floor of the instant commercial building and the Plaintiff’s gold bank (hereinafter “instant water pipes”).

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 10, witness D's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion sustained damages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 9,952,00,00 in terms of water leakage damage caused by the dynamic wave of the water pipeline of this case, including expenses for reconstruction, material cost, suspension of business operation, etc.

However, as a lessor of the instant commercial building, the Defendant is not only obligated to repair under Article 623 of the Civil Act, but also D, the possessor of the instant commercial building, did not neglect his duty of care. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act as the owner.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,952,00 as damages and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The liability for compensating for damages inflicted on another person due to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is primaryly in the possession of a factory that actually occupies and manages the structure directly and specifically in accordance with Article 758 of the Civil Act. The possessor of the structure does not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages. It is the second type of exemption from liability when it is proved that the possessor of the structure has not neglected such care.